Scottie

That is the number I saw as well. Sack him and sell a player or two to cover the £12m. I can think of several players I would happily sacrifice to get rid of RM.

I don't think PSR works that way. Tall Paul we brought for about £18m and he is 1.5 years into a 3.5 year contract. So his book value is around £10m. Hence if we sell him for £7/8m he will be a loss of £2/3m in PSR terms which reduces our ability to sign other players. For ABK I think he is half way through his contract and he cost about £9m so his book value is around £4.5m Hence c. £8m profit on him. Charly is 1.5 years into a 4.5 year contract (not sure how extensions apply) so his book value is c. £8m. So maybe £13m profit. Add these up and you get £19m ish profit and that's before we have to pay sell on clauses which will reduce these amounts say to £15m. The good news is transfers in work differently and you spread the cost over the contract so if everyone we sign was a four year contract then the £15m is worth £60m in transfer fees. Back to bad news. This won't be additional spend, if you look at our PSR numbers then some of this is offsetting what we have already spent. Conclusion is that PSR makes it impossible for fans to have any idea on a clubs financial position !

When you buy a player the cost is amortised across the length of the contract. So if they sign him for £30m on a 5 year contract the current years PSR impact will be c £0.5m (1 month out of 60). where as if you sell you instantly book the profit to PSR (profit being the difference sale price and book value).

He has been terrible.

It's more like £160m on sales. The £180m number includes add-ons which don't count in fair play rules until they happen. You also need to subtract the sell on clauses for other clubs which was substantial for Livramento and Lavia, so take another £30m off gets you to more like £130m. Then for fair play you have to net off their book value (i.e. make it profit not fee received). Luckily they were all cheap to buy so say £20m gets us to £110m. Then take off your £30m spend on players and we are down to £80m ish profit from player trading. Note last year we lost about £45m before player trading so assuming all other things equal we need to make up £65m to get to the numbers of profit Chaz mentioned above (need circa £20m for FPP). And of course our income dropped by about £60m. So we in total we need to make up £125m of which we already made up £80m from the trading per above. So another £45m to make up. Of course our wage bill will have dropped a lot, there was some big payoffs on managers/staff last year (£15m?) and player amortisation will be down. Also not all costs are included in FPP. To me it looks like someone is managing this quite well and we will probably make a small profit to about the amount we need in order to meet FPP.

They don’t. Our last published wages was about £113m. There is no way that has been reduced to £40m.

We aren't in the premiership. So it will be two years of premiership rules and one year of Football league which leads to £88m maximum losses. Also worth noting that the maximum losses are based on secured funding from the owner. Without secured funding from the owner then the maximum is £15m, so if SR don't put any money in then the number is £15m rather than £100m you quoted.

The answer is because the fair play rules are garbage. They are based on a balance sheet/P&L view of the world rather than cash. So whilst it's obvious we should sell him cheaply to get his wages off the bill it would count against us for fair play rules. If we brought him for c. £18m then his current book value will be around £15m (amortised half a year of a 3.5 year contract). If we sell him for £5m then we will have to book a £10m loss in this years accounts. We would then save his wages (say £2m a year) but would still lose £8m from a fair play perspective. Of course we aren't really losing £8m as we already lost that when we brought him, it's all due to the dodgy accounting rules and fair play rules. If we are sailing close to the wind on fair play then selling Onuchu for a £8m loss could potentially mean having to sell another player to cover the loss. The short answer would have been football accounts make no sense!

Two years left on his contract.

No one telling him about Martin is not really a surprise.Why would they? What I heard was that discussions with him on his future started after the Fulham game. I say discussions as he was told he wouldn’t be manager but was asked to discuss other roles at the club. It was indicated that wouldn’t be with the first team.

I also work in finance and completely agree with you. Promotions within are the norm.

Consistently one of our best players over the last few seasons. Given the size of our club and our funding it’s highly unlikely we will get better regardless of what league we are in.

Undoubtedly we have relegation clauses in the players contracts. The papers quote standard in the league as 25% to 40%. Assume it’s the lower at 25% and that leaves us £28m short on wages based on your numbers. £5m of that covered by Maitland-Nile’s and Walcott. Presume Prowsey will want to go so another £5m off the wage bill and maybe £35m towards the losses Sell Salisu given his contract situation for £20m and you have covered the losses (with £10m to spare). Okay £15m or so short on wages so offset that with the extra sales and more or less there. Any other sales, use the money for replacements.

I was initially willing to give him a go but his interviews have convinced me he can't turn this around and is out of his depth. Act now or we go down.

Funny enough that is pretty much it. xG = number of goals my dog would have scored.

Amazing result. Proud of them.

Interesting article and quite reassuring. The more I hear from Semmens the more I like him. Talks a lot of sense and clearly has the clubs best interests at heart. Fingers crossed he can find the right sort of investment for the club.

It’s not as bad as it looks. A substantial proportion of the losses are due to player trading. If you look at the loss prior to player trading it’s much lower (£23.5m). There was also much larger exceptions than normal (onerous player contracts etc.) which are roughly £8m more than normal. Then there is the £20m deferral of revenue. If you allow for both of those then we would have been fairly neutral on profit/loss before player trading. So cut transfer budgets back for next few years and keep to broadly spending just what we receive from sales. Get rid of the wage burdens (Hoedt etc), which should reduce wages enough so that we can pay the interest on the new loan. As at the accounts date the new loan is just sitting in the bank (£86m cash in the bank). If we can do some of the above and restrict how much of the £80m we spend then paying it back won’t be so bad. Also worth noting we paid back a previous loan of £20m in this accounts period. I have no doubt that we won’t pay back all of the £80m and will roll some of it into a new loan at a lower rate. There are plenty of worrying things in the accounts but it’s not all bad. There certainly isn’t anything that warrants a fire sale of key players in a depressed market. If we sell players like Ings it will be due to contract positions. Keep the faith. #COYR

Not very well clued up given how many are wrong! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks to Markus and his family who kept the faith. The word legend is often over used but you are a true Saints legend and always will be.

He made a big mistake by showing him the inside rather than the outside. Harding has been poor so far.

My wife got Rory Delap, Wayne Bridge, Theo Walcott, Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, James Beattie, MLT, Alan Shearer, Rickie Lambert, the brother who isn't Shaun Wright Phillips, that bloke who was on television yesterday and nicked stuff from a club, that bloke who was in hospital due to getting beaten up, that bald bloke who runs round a lot, Kevin Keegan and Goolies (think she meant Guly). At this point she started to guess and we gave up when she came up with Ally McCoist who played with MLT. Not a bad list given she is a Liverpool fan!

The people who are eating the prawn sandwiches.

The report doesn't say he never got a reply, it says he never received a substantive reply. Which clearly implies that he did get a reply, but that the reply he got wasn't a full explanation.

He would still get some money as the money owed to him is secured debt. i.e. he gets first call on any money made from the assets they liquidate. He could even end up getting more money if they are liquidated than if they come out of administration.